Invidious vs Tube Archivist
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted apps from related categories — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Invidious
Alternative front-end to YouTube
VS
Tube Archivist
Self-hosted YouTube media server with metadata and search
| Feature | Invidious | Tube Archivist |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Social Networks | Media Servers |
| License | GPL-3.0-only | GPL-3.0 |
| Language | Crystal | Python |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 50 MB | 2,048 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 22,442 | ★ 8,342 |
| First released | 2023 | 2021 |
| Replaces | YouTube | YouTube |
Why pick each one
Choose Invidious if…
- Released under the GPL-3.0-only license
- Mature project with 22.4k GitHub stars
- Written in Crystal
- Tiny footprint — runs in 50 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is Invidious or Tube Archivist better?
Neither is universally better. Invidious has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Invidious and Tube Archivist free and open-source?
Yes. Invidious is licensed under GPL-3.0-only and Tube Archivist under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Invidious and Tube Archivist with Docker?
Invidious: check the project docs for container support. Tube Archivist: yes.